Public Prosecutor v Yusry Shah bin Jamal

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: V K Rajah JA
• Judgment Date: 31 October 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 188
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 82 of 2007
• Date: 31 October 2007
• Published date: 26 December 2007
• Year: 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: Janet Wang (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 188
• Defendant Counsel: Ismail Hamid (Ismail Hamid & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Relevant sentencing considerations,How court struck balance between giving effect to rehabilitative considerations and need for deterrence particularly where young offenders were concerned,Young offenders,Sentencing,Accused charged with robbery and theft in dwelling,Appeals,Whether rehabilitation or deterrence dominant consideration given seriousness of offence, culpability of accused and commission of shoplifting while out on court bail

31 October 2007

V K Rajah JA:

Introduction

1 This was an appeal by the Public Prosecutor (“the Prosecution”) against the sentence imposed on the respondent by the district judge. The respondent was charged with robbery under s 392 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”), together with four others. He was also charged with an offence of shoplifting pursuant to s 380 of the Penal Code. The respondent had pleaded guilty to both charges and accepted unreservedly the Statement of Facts. In the result, the district judge sentenced the respondent to a term of 30 months’ probation entailing six months of intensive probation in a hostel and 24 months’ supervised probation with six months of e-tagging, and the attendant conditions.

2 I heard this appeal together with PP v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri [2007] SGHC 187 (“Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri”) and allowed the Prosecution’s appeal by substituting the probation order made by the district judge with a sentence of reformative training with immediate effect. As the applicable sentencing principles are largely identical with that discussed in my grounds of decision for Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri, it will be sufficient for the purposes of the present appeal if I were simply to state the facts and refer to Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri to explain the reasons for my decision here.

The facts

3 Like Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri ([2] supra), the facts in this appeal are uncomplicated and can be stated with economy. On 31 March 2006 at about 8.04pm, the respondent, then 17 years of age, was with his three accomplices, Mohamad Norhazri bin Mohd Faudzi (“Norhazri”), Khairul Zaman bin Mamon Basir (“Khairul”) and Muhamad Dhiyauddin bin Ahmad (“Dhiyauddin”) in a Malaysian registered vehicle (“the car”) entering Singapore via the Woodlands checkpoint. Norhazri drove the car and met up with his cousin, Mohamed Fadzli bin Abdul Rahim (“Fadzli”).The group then proceeded to Bedok Reservoir Road to visit Norhazri’s grandfather.

4 It transpired that because of a staring incident involving an unknown group of boys, the group, including the respondent, initially intended to confront their antagonists. This showdown was only averted because the other group dispersed. Subsequently, Norhazri and Dhiyauddin hatched a plan to obtain money by staging a robbery. The respondent and Khairul agreed to this scheme and the entire group, less Fadzli, then combed the vicinity for victims. After a futile 20 minutes, Fadzli rejoined them. On the way to Geylang, Norhazri, Fadzli and Dhiyauddin hatched a plan to rob sex workers. The respondent and Khairul agreed to participate in this plan of action. As there was no space left in the car to pick up sex workers, the group proceeded to Geylang Drive, where the respondent, Khairul and Dhiyauddin alighted, leaving Norhazri and Fadzli to prowl for sex workers.

5 Shortly thereafter, Norhazri and Fadzli met the victim, a foreign sex worker, and went through the motions of negotiating payment with her in return for her services. They lured the victim into the car and brought her to Geylang Drive where the rest of group had been awaiting their arrival. As planned, the respondent, Khairul and Dhiyauddin were alerted to the arrival of the victim in the car. Following a signal from Norhazri and Fadzli, some members of the group proceeded to attack the unsuspecting victim as she stepped out of the car. As this was going on, the respondent and Khairul acted as look-outs and stood near the victim. In the course of the attack, the victim was forcefully disrobed and sexually assaulted by the respondent’s accomplices. Khairul also held the victim’s shoulder and abdomen when the latter fell and told her to keep quiet. A medical report on the victim’s injuries subsequently revealed that she sustained multiple bruises on her head, limbs and trunk. The victim’s handbag and valuables were also wrenched from her. Subsequently, the group fled the scene, and the respondent and Khairul were handed their share of $60 from the spoils of the robbery. The respondent was 17 years old at the time of the offence.

6 After the respondent had been arrested for his role in the subject incident, he brazenly committed another offence while on court bail. On 28 January 2007, the respondent took two t-shirts and proceeded to the fitting room in a store in Causeway Point, a shopping centre in Woodlands. When he subsequently emerged from the fitting room with only one t-shirt in his hand, the manager of the store queried him about the other t-shirt he had brought into the fitting room. The respondent then pulled out the t-shirt from his bag and acknowledged that he had intended to steal it. The respondent was later arrested by the police and charged accordingly.

The district judge’s decision

7 The hearing before the district judge took place over four days sometime between March and April 2007, and the district judge later issued her grounds of decision in PP v Yusry Shah bin Jamal [2007] SGDC 144 (“GD”). In the course of the hearing, the district judge called for probation and reformative training reports. The Prosecution strongly objected to probation, arguing that in view of the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances, it was not warranted. The Prosecution in turn submitted that the respondent should be sent for reformative training at the reformative training centre if the district judge was not minded to impose the sentence prescribed by ss 392 and 380 of the Penal Code.

8 In deciding whether probation could and should be granted, the district judge considered three factors (GD at [48]): (a) the seriousness of the offence; (b) the respondent’s prospects of reform and rehabilitation; and (c) whether there were any other reasons militating against granting probation. She reached the same conclusion as she had in PP v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri [2007] SGDC 145, concluding that the respondent did not have a high degree of involvement in the robbery as he was merely acting as a look-out and as such the possibility of...